But I do not approve of gay marriage, for reasons I gave in a previous thread long ago. To sum it up here:Words mean things. Since the dawn of time, in every culture, in every nation, marriage has been an arrangement between men and women, exclusively. Even places like ancient Greece, where homosexuality was widely accepted and carried no social stigma, never referred to homosexual relagionships as marriages.

Consenting adults are free to engage in whatever relationships they wish. But calling a relationship something it isn't doesn't make it such.

Or, as one farmer I know put it, "You can call a cow a chicken all day long, it still won't lay eggs."

I'll be glad if the 9th Circuit gets overturned on this one, as they are on about 70% of their rulings.

But I do not approve of gay marriage, for reasons I gave in a previous thread long ago. To sum it up here:Words mean things. Since the dawn of time, in every culture, in every nation, marriage has been an arrangement between men and women, exclusively. Even places like ancient Greece, where homosexuality was widely accepted and carried no social stigma, never referred to homosexual relagionships as marriages.

Consenting adults are free to engage in whatever relationships they wish. But calling a relationship something it isn't doesn't make it such.

Or, as one farmer I know put it, "You can call a cow a chicken all day long, it still won't lay eggs."

I'll be glad if the 9th Circuit gets overturned on this one, as they are on about 70% of their rulings.

Once upon a time blacks weren't allowed to marry whites, and it was seen as just.

The modern discrimination against gays is just the current fallback that prejudice, xenophobia and intolerance have retreated to now that they're no longer allowed to openly express themselves against people based on race as they were a few decades ago.

Since the dawn of time, in every culture, in every nation, marriage has been an arrangement between men and women, exclusively

So, I take it you're OK with polygamy, right? It's also a time-honored tradition in many, many cultures. So is infanticide, for that matter. Separate issues, yes, but I don't think "we've always done it this way" is a solid enough argument for determining civil rights issues.

Actually, the prohibiion on interracial marriage was mostly an American thing. In many past cultures it had been common. I think that you can make a strong argument that sexuality is a BEHAVIOR, whereas race is an inborn condition.

As far as polygamy goes, no, I don't favor it here, but in cultures where it is a time-honored tradition and a longstanding institution, then I have no problem with it being allowed in those places.

I think one reason that this issue inflames so many temperaments is that marriage is both a religious and civil institution, and many religions regard homosexual relations as inherently sinful.

As I said, I believe consenting adults are free to do what they want in the eyes of the law. But changing the fundamental nature of the oldest societal institution in the world to meet the demands of a few activists, against the will of a large majority of the nation's population, is foolish and ill-advised.

Societal standards can change, even if they're older than dirt. I personally don't think age of a standard is any reason to disallow rights. If the church doesn't want to marry homosexuals, that's fine because it's their ballgame. As for the rest of society, I think we should all have what's fair. Also, I don't see how a marriage between two men isn't a marriage. I don't think marriage has to do with love, because there have been plenty of loveless marriages between straight people, and they've still been called marriages. I don't think it has to do with breeding, because infertile straight people can still be married. Definitions are human ideas, and ideas can change. That's just my opinion.

Thanks, Joe. While antiquity and precedent should not be the sole deciding issue, I think it is foolish to completely disregard them - especially on an issue like this where the judge's ruling was clearly against the will of a majority of the people, not just in the state, but nationwide.

I was listening to Mark Davis, my favorite talk radio guy, this morning, and he made some very interesting points on this issue. I can't begin to make it as eloquent as he did, but his argument boiled down to this:

He said how we feel about the issue is completely irrelevent - or should be - to the court's ruling. A court must base all its rulings on what the Constitution actually says. His take was that, according to the 10th Amendment, this is purely a state matter and that the Federal government should have no jurisdiction at all in it. The invocation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amerndment, in his opinion - and he argued his opinion very persuasively - was irrelevent to this case and baseless. Each state creates its own marriage and divorce laws, and in this case, he said the will of the state - as expressed by the voters - should be sovereign.

It was a very interesting dissertation from a radio host who doesn't yell at his callers, claim to be smarter than all who disagree with him, or pull any of the other crazy stunts that make so many talk shows (I'M TALKING TO YOU, MARK LEVIN!!!!!!!!!!) intolerable to listen to. I wish Mark Davis would get a national show again - he had one for awhile, but he is now purely local here in Dallas Fort Worth , except for when he occasionally guest hosts for Limbaugh.

Frankly, even though I agree with Rush on a number of issues, Mark Davis is 10 times the talk show host he is.

He said how we feel about the issue is completely irrelevent - or should be - to the court's ruling. A court must base all its rulings on what the Constitution actually says. His take was that, according to the 10th Amendment, this is purely a state matter and that the Federal government should have no jurisdiction at all in it.

I'm still not sure how I feel. Based on how the fourteenth amendment applies to the tenth, it seems to me it could go either way. I mean, school systems are also run by the state, but the Equal Protection clause was used to end segregation in it. In a technical sense, it could be argued defining marriage as between a man and a woman doesn't treat anyone differently than anyone else - after all, gay men CAN marry women. But, in a more generalized sense, it could be argued differently. I dunno. It's a difficult legal matter, from my reading.